Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 258485 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

truth

Pearsall, Australia

#185065 Nov 17, 2013
https://www.google.com.au/search...

i drove over map cizme as boots on snjire dots on zigzag

see

jelto neko prodaje zilet
pitaj komsije

jeto oni koji napadaju a policija ih salje i ministri
jeste jeste to je ta bag.ra

jelto neki prevodioc iz kom/ju.nite
a takoneko heloszano jeste ti

very sad
but truthfull story in future o moj jure
sve na burekurekna jajasce\

a tako

very sad

your law is not my law

i never trust any law
as well never will be
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooo
truth

Pearsall, Australia

#185066 Nov 17, 2013
nothing will be safe

no any planet
nooooooooooooo

as jajce on krizance na satealaioate

nemoj te biti smjesni i prenagli u pokvarenim namjerama

its written
liar from beginning

liar
truth

Pearsall, Australia

#185067 Nov 17, 2013
dakle volite tudjih jaja

a sto ako bude sve na mucak
as krizance na satelite

ma nemoj

marsh you know where

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185068 Nov 17, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
Amusing.
The fact is you were setting up a false scenario and choices to feed your ego.
You are quite the bundle of issues, IANS. Egotistical, paranoid. passive/aggressive, and an imitation intellectual. Continue on with your monologues.
He's a slippery one.

I have encountered the type before.

You can pin them down to their self-contradictions, and they will utilize the tools of the particular forum to ostensibly extricate themselves.

One IAnus technique I have honed into with him - I post a response to one of his posts, proving he's full of it, then he reappears to defend comments in his post that were not the object of the rebuttal, then feigns indignation.

Another is the substituting of descriptive terms, or generalizations, that do not fit the actual facts, then using them for factual evidence. It's a straw man of sorts.

It sounds convincing and admirable to our Topix Atheists.

To others, he relies on it's authoritative and analytical tenor.

It's not the least bit confusing once recognized.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#185069 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a slippery one.
I have encountered the type before.
You can pin them down to their self-contradictions, and they will utilize the tools of the particular forum to ostensibly extricate themselves.
One IAnus technique I have honed into with him - I post a response to one of his posts, proving he's full of it, then he reappears to defend comments in his post that were not the object of the rebuttal, then feigns indignation.
Another is the substituting of descriptive terms, or generalizations, that do not fit the actual facts, then using them for factual evidence. It's a straw man of sorts.
It sounds convincing and admirable to our Topix Atheists.
To others, he relies on it's authoritative and analytical tenor.
It's not the least bit confusing once recognized.
We called them bullshit artists where I came from.

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#185070 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I think we're talking about two different things that share a word. Consider these two definitions of respect:
1. a feeling of deep admiration
2. due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others.
I was using the word in the first sense (and assumed from context that Bongo was as well), you in the second. Everybody gets the second kind of respect automatically until they lose due to some low act or base quality, whereas the first must be earned by virtue of some venerable act or quality.
Would you agree?**PORTIONS SNIPPED**
.. yes, respect must be the initial default position ..

.. regarding respect being, "a feeling of deep admiration," that's questionable ..

.. some people I respect without any deep admiration; they're 'salt of the earth' types - kind, understanding and compassionate. These are the qualities that separate the wheat from the chaff ..

.. think Al Garcia or Epi. Do you have a deep admiration for them or do you simply respect their integrity and honesty ??..

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#185071 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe.
I could force my size 16 boot up your ass.
So tough are you? To threaten a teenaged crippled girl.
So very cavalier .

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185072 Nov 17, 2013
Incidentally, if anybody's interest has been piqued by this discussion of the Dover ID trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), note that the transcript I referred to is of the NOVA documentary that I linked to yesterday at
(my apologies to Dave for introducing an outside resource, and to Eagle for repeating it)

There is much more fascinating and humorous drama there

[1] There was the perjury from the Christians that introduced the book to the school which Judge Jones recommended be considered for prosecution ("Jones recommended to the U.S. Attorney that he investigate bringing perjury charges against Buckingham and Bonsell for lying under oath"). Unsurprisingly, they were not charged.

[2] And there is the hysterical testimony form Christian apologist and ID advocate Michael Behe who called ID a valid scientific theory, and then was made to admit that by his definition, astrology was also a scientific theory:

PROSECUTOR ERIC ROTHSCHILD: Under the same definition, astrology is a scientific theory, using your definition, correct?

EXPERT WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE MICHAEL BEHE: Using my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to observable physical data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect, which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is, in fact, one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other, many other theories as well.

ROTHSCHILD: The ether theory of light has been discarded?

BEHE: That is correct.

ROTHSCHILD : But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory?

BEHE: Yes, that's correct.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185073 Nov 17, 2013
[3] Then there was the matter of the defendants denying that ID was just repackaged Creationism, which the courts had already banned in 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision. That lie was exposed when they found evidence that the original drafts of Pandas (full name Of Pandas And People) that the Dover board had put into the local public school had used the term creationism, but had changed the language to ID following the Edwards ruling:

BARBARA FORREST: In the first 1987 draft, which is the pre-Edwards draft, the definition of creation reads this way "Creation means that various forms of life began abruptly, through the agency of an intelligent creator, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera." The same definition in this draft, after the Edwards decision, reads this way: "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, et cetera." Same definition, just one is worded in terms of creationism, the other one worded in terms of intelligent design.

To add insult to injury, one draft had made the change improperly. creating the amusing term "Cdesign proponentsits":

BARBARA FORREST: In cleansing this manuscript, they failed to replace every word properly. I found the word "creationists." And instead of replacing the entire word, they just kind of did this, and got "design proponents" with the "c" in front and the "ists" in the back from the original word.

This was ridiculed in an amazingly hysterical way:

NICK MATZKE: So the correct term for this transitional form is "Cdesign proponentsists." And everyone now refers to this as the "missing link" between creationism and intelligent design. You've got the direct physical evidence there of a transitional fossil.

=======

Sorry, Buck, but these are not personal insults directed at you even if you choose to see them that way. If you care to rebut them, please be civil, control your rage, and try to avoid abusive language directed at me. I am not a liar for having these opinions.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#185074 Nov 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
What have you created?
I like to be able to make a comparison.
Since you don't have an answer you just dodge the question I see.

I'm not claiming to be god and I'm still
I'm allot more creative than your god and so are you.

I've got nothing to prove but your god has everything to prove.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185075 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
From the transcript of 'Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial' with my annotations added in brackets
"[Judge John] Jones had been recommended for his position on the bench by [uberconsevative Christian] Senator Santorum and appointed by George W. Bush. Before becoming a judge, Jones was head of Pennsylvania's liquor control board, where he banned the sale of Bad Frog beer because it showed a cartoon frog making an offensive gesture."
And what were their views on ID?
"Rick Santorum, then Pennsylvania senator, had commended the school district for its intelligent design policy. And President Bush had thrown his support behind intelligent design, saying, "Both sides ought to be properly taught so people can understand what the debate is about."
"Initially, you find out you've got a judge that's been appointed by President Bush, who has come out himself in favor of intelligent design, and that makes you a little nervous."
"Members of the defense, however, were optimistic about their chances in Jones's courtroom."
Sorry, but the judgment for the prosecution and the court's comment were unexpected,and outraged theists such as you:
"In the wake of the trial, TIME Magazine named Judge Jones one of the 100 most influential people of the year, but not everyone was so pleased with the Judge's...
<quoted text>
Your opinions are not facts. You are free to disagree with me. You are not free to characterize meas a liar. I suggest that you think about that and try to curb this behavior before it turns into something that I think neither of us wants. See if you can keep it impersonal and check your libelous and abusive characterizations.
It's not libelous if I can prove it is true.

Your thesis is that Judge Jones' ruling was unexpected because he was appointed by Bush, and recommended by Santorum, and didn't want a frog on a can of beer flipping the bird.

Have you heard of Justice David Souter? He was appointed by H.W. Bush and turned out to be a reliable liberal on the bench.

Moving from your taste in evidence, which is not evidence, but only inuendo, what about the actual evidence of how Jones might be expected to rule?

Judge Jones was aware before the trial that the Dover school board had already changed hands, and was planning to drop the mention (and it was only a mention, and a referral to those who voluntarily could look at a book in the library) of Intelligent Design. The case was moot, but he chose to hear it anyway, for reasons apparent in his zest for being in the lime-light.

Judge Jones lashed out in court at witnesses for the ID side who, in his words, committed the infraction of "touting their religious views in public".

The New York Times reported that Judge Jones was awestruck that his case appeared on the cover of 'Rolling Stone', and that he even bragged to his wife about it before buying a copy.

In the same interview with The New York Times, BEFORE HIS RULING, Judge Jones entertained the possibility that he might be a candidate for governor.

Before the trial, Judge Jones publicly expressed his giddiness about presiding over the trial, remarking "even Charles Darwin's great grandson is going to be at the trial".

During the course of the trial, Judge Jones repeatedly cut-off reputable, peer-reviewed scientists, who were witnesses for the ID side, in mid-sentence. With one witness, a world-renowned microbiologist, Dr. Scott Minnich, it became so exasperating that Minnich began retorting to the judge.

There is much more. But to whom was it "unexpected" that Judge Jones would rule for the politically-correct side?

And how was it "heroic" to copy errant factual evidence from an ACLU brief that was written before the trial began?

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#185076 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post. I like anything about thinking about thinking.
<quoted text>
How about belief based on evidence? Belief in this sense is partial knowledge - what is possibly or probably true - based on what is known to be true.
I am making a distinction between belief, by which I mean evidence based partial knowledge, and belief in, by which I mean faith based belief grounded in nothing. Using that language, you can say that you believe many things, such as that there is intelligent life in the universe based on local evidence of the nature of life and celestial bodies, but that you believe in nothing, such as lizard people already hear on earth.
And I offer this for your consideration: You used the word intellect with reference to your cat. I would reserve that word for human minds. Cats, like people, have intelligence in the sense that they can learn and solve problems. But I reserve the word intellect for referring to the strictly human capacity to manipulate abstract symbols - to think and speak in language, and to calculate.
And as always, I apologize to the theists present, especially Eagle, for repeatedly referring to such matters - the philosophical examination of ideas - which you have indicated bores you to tears with your recent complaint about our endless repetition.
And out of respect for Dave Nelson and his form of freethinking, I left out any links to outside references and gave only my own thoughts here, although I confess that I did corrupt Bob's ability to freethink as you and Riverside Redneck conceive the word when I shared them with him, something you both equate with lockstep thinking just before tittering about it.
Thanks, guys, for helping me keep it real.
.. thanks for responding in depth to Bob's post ..

.. do cats or dogs respond instinctively to stimuli? Probably. Bob put a great deal of thought into his response and, overall, I think it extremely accurate. I failed to respond in kind. For that, I apologize, sometimes I need to sleep on things ..

.. we like to believe our pets love us yet we know feral animals do not exhibit love towards humans. Somewhere along the line, a tamed animal discovers a food source, warmth and comfort ..

.. perhaps the same applies to religion, a powerful super being being exists who will tend to their needs after death if they are obedient and worship the entity. Instinct or belief ??..

“MEET KIKI -She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#185077 Nov 17, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
That's so fuckincool.
Can you force your fingers to stop typing again?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe.
I could force my size 16 boot up your ass.
.. shame on you ..

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#185078 Nov 17, 2013
Eagle 12 wrote:
<quoted text>
God was the first designer, engineer, architect, builder, creator. He loves his garage projects. It keeps him busy.
What would you do if you were God. Set in a rocking chair with a blank stare and your mouth open?
You make these claims about god is this god is that but you don't provide any evidence to back it up. That's what God's do I guess, create flawed living things then and have them suffer when they don't obey him all because he's bored and has nothing more to do.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185079 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
It doesn't have to be ad rem for me to want to investigate it. I Google almost everything I'm unfamiliar with. You should already know that. I wanted to know more about Uri Nodelman and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as well as the particular article you cited. Why is it that I couldn't find it in the Encyclopedia or anywhere else except in two other Topix posts left by you, both over a year ago.
Buck Crick wrote:
Your dissembling is not convincing.
1. You argue forcefully for a fraudulent definition of atheism.
2. I provide the chronology of how the fraudulent definition of the term, which you support, is contrived to serve an agenda. And I provide such from a prestigious academic source.
3. Left with no defense, you call it "irrelevant".
4. While calling it irrelevant, you simultaneously let it slip that you researched the cited statement, proving you do consider it relevant.
5. And now we are supposed to believe that it's simply habit.
No, not convincing at all. Learn to lose with integrity.
I can't find any evidence in this response that you read my post. Can you connect any of your sentences with any of mine?

I can only surmise why you didn't answer the question. And I have.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#185080 Nov 17, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you do not agree with him.
He says he prefers not to call himself an atheist, but an agnostic.
You call yourself an atheist, and just say it doesn't matter, because words mean whatever a person wants them to mean.
He thinks it matters.
What won't you nitpick over? What point is too trivial for you not to make an issue of?

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185081 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
ROTHSCHILD : But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory?
BEHE: Yes, that's correct.
No, I don't call you a liar for presenting facts.

I call you a liar for what you just did, which was edit a response from Behe to prevaricate.

You are presenting the claim that Behe believes astrology should be accepted as science on the same grounds as ID.

He does not, and he does not say he does. You are attempting the same lie the attorney Rothschild was trying to spin with his questions.

Here is Behe's actual response, not YOUR EDITED VERSION:

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.[Here is where Ianus' fraudulent citation ends] And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Behe continues:

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.
__________

Behe was 100% correct.

And Behe calls astrology, in sworn testimony, "foolish".

And ever since then, people like IAnus have lied about what Behe claims and believes to be true.
truth

Pearsall, Australia

#185082 Nov 17, 2013
its your ja volte
nevolite vi nikog
kradete i multiplicirate

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185083 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I can't find any evidence in this response that you read my post. Can you connect any of your sentences with any of mine?
I can only surmise why you didn't answer the question. And I have.
OK, I'll connect it for you:

You claimed a term had evolved, I showed proof that it was contrived, you claimed the proof was not relevant, I pointed out that your claim of irrelevance was not credible because you researched it, you then claimed it was just habit, and you are not believable in the claim.

...in a nutshell.

I don't appreciate being put to the trouble when I know you understand the ontogeny of this discussion.

Being a good loser is a must if you want to challenge me often.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#185084 Nov 17, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What won't you nitpick over? What point is too trivial for you not to make an issue of?
You're the one who said you and Richard Dawkins agree.

But you do not.

I don't see how one point is more trivial than the other.

Is your point more important because you made it, even though it's not true?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 80,075
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... (Aug '15) 4 hr Fit2Serve 164
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr Eagle 12 - 32,607
what science will NEVER be able to prove 14 hr Eagle 12 - 10
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) 14 hr Eagle 12 - 106
News People's forum - Get off the fence of religious... (May '10) 15 hr Eagle 12 - 69
News Atheist billboards to mock Romney, Obama faith (Aug '12) Sep 15 superwilly 47
More from around the web